`Abdullah wrote:
«Regardless whether that man was good in keeping the commandments or not, do you think keeping the commandments will lead you to the eternal life?»

I believe we are required to keep those commandments which are incumbent upon us. But I believe faith in Christ is required as well. God is sovereign, and will determine who is saved, not me, but it does seem to me that faith in Christ is required.

***

Paul wrote:
«Matthew has Jesus teach that doing the commands of God brings eternal life;
Paul has a religion about Jesus, where eternal life is founded on faith in Jesus alone.»

You stated this in your original post, and I responded to this. Note again:

(1) The Matthean text has Christ telling a person to keep certain commandments. Paul taught that people are required to keep those commandments as well. So they agree on that point.

(2) Christ told a man who kept the relevant commandments that he had to follow Him, as well. Paul likewise told men to believe in Christ. So it seems they agree on that as well.

In short, the teachings of Paul and Christ seem to me to be in explicit agreement: men are required to keep certain commandments, and men are required to accept the authority of Christ.

I understand the argument, but I do not interpret the text the way you do. Yes, Christ states that if the man wishes to enter into life, he must keep the commandments. That would mean keeping the commandments is required, but it need not mean that keeping the commandments is all that is required.

But let’s look at the larger context. When the man asks Christ about it, Christ somewhat dismissively asks him why he is asking Him. Then after the man affirms that he has kept the required commandments listed by Christ, Christ gives him still another command (which is not listed among the Mosaid law) and tells him to follow Him. The man leaves, seemingly unwilling to go that extra step, after Christ implies that it is unlikely the man will enter the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e. his commandment keeping was not eneough). Christ’s dimissive question “why ask me…?” fits with the man’s apparent unwillingness to accept Christ’s extra-Mosaic commands and Christ’s subsequent declaration that the man is unlikely to be saved, as the implication is that the man did not accept Christ’s authority (hence the challenging question at the start).

So, my reading of the fuller text is that the man kept the required commandments, yet did not fully accept Christ’s authority. His commandment keeping, while required, was not enough.

This lines up perfectly with Paul’s teachings, where there are required commandments (i.e. unrepentant murderers, adulters, et cetera, will not be saved), but where faith in Christ is required, too.

On an interesting side note, I would propose that there is somewhat of a parallel in your own faith. Consider surat an-Nisa’ 4:150-151, and contemplate this question: what are the implications of that passage for a person who never commits adultery, never commits murder, holds to a unitarian form of monotheism, yet consciously rejects Jesus?

It has been my experience that a great many Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, classical Protestants) insist on keeping the Commandments. However, when they do so, they do not mean keep the entirety of the Mosaic law, as they believe significant portions of it either we’re abrogated or do not apply to certain communities.

“entirety of the Mosaic law”
Why do you tell me that? Tell that to Jesus not me.
“Therefore whoever relaxes one of (((the least))) of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “

Paul wrote:
«According to Jesus in Matthew disciples must obey ALL of the law (Matt 5:17 onwards).»

Actually, I see Matthew 5:17 as alluding to a change to the Law (it is a disclaimer that although changes are coming about, the Law is not being abolished; rather it is being brought to a sort of intended fulfillment, actualization or completion), as I attempt to convey in the following graphic:

The above is minor. More salient is the implication of verse 18, in light of the rest of Matthew (i.e. if the Law is fulfilled, then changes are permissible, and Christ introduces changes [e.g. with the laws on divorce], ergo the aforementioned fulfillment has occurred), as I discuss in the following graphic:

***

`Abdullah quoted:
«“Therefore whoever relaxes one of (((the least))) of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “»

Note: these commandments, i.e. the ones being discussed in that Sermon. And note that some of those commandments in that Sermon constitute alterations to the Law (such as, for example, the law on divorce). So one is not required to keep the entirety of the Mosaic Law. One is required to keep the Law which Christ brings forth (this is the clear implication of Matthew 19:3-12, where an amendment Christ brings trumps what Moses permitted).

For an analogy, note that a similar concept is alluded to even in the Qur’an, as surat Al `Imran 3:50 has Christ stating that He would take things which were previously 7aram and make them 7alal. In short, He is not ushering in lawlessness; rather He is abrogating aspects of the Law, and people are under the Law He brings, not the version which preceded His ministry.

” Actually, I see Matthew 5:17 as alluding to a change to the Law (it is a disclaimer that although changes are coming about, the Law is not being abolished; rather it is being brought to a sort of intended fulfillment, actualization or completion), ”

As long as you play with the langaue, and you’re a master in that as I see, you will be in the dark. Fear Allah, and ask your heart.
What does your heart tell you?
Also, what do you think of Isaiah 66:17? Did not God know that pig flesh would be clean later? Why did he name eating that flesh as abomination? Notice that passage is about the end of days!

Quran is irrelevant to your problem since Quran has its own perspective.

The matter is not much about abrogation of some laws replaced by others rather it’s about 2 different attitudes ;
Jesus who said explicitly that the law would lead you to get the( etranl life ) in one hand.
And Paul who said explicitly that the law would lead you to death on the other hand.

`Abdullah wrote:
«As long as you play with the langaue, and you’re a master in that as I see, you will be in the dark.»

Honestly, now, and with all due respect, what I did was examine the relevant verb, in both the Greek and Syriac versions of the verse. Simply declaring that I am playing language games, yet not grappling with the argument or the text, strikes me as unhelpful.

`Abdullah wrote:
«Fear Allah»

Indeed. That’s good advice for us all.

`Abdullah wrote:
«what do you think of Isaiah 66:17?»

Interestingly, there is a portion in Graetz’ Geschichte der Juden where the passage is treated as alluding overall to a system or collection of Chaldean religious customs. Likewise, if one checks the verse in Miqra’ot Gedolot, they will see that the Jewish commentator RaSh”Y treated this verse as referring to an idolatrous rite (so too, there, Ibn `Ezra states that they were purifying themselves for an idolatrous rite). RaSh”Y even appeals to Targum Yonatan, saying it was si`a batar si`a, i.e. one sect after another (or one faction after another [“si`a” = Arabic “shi`a”]), purifying themselves, enterting into those gardens, erecting idols, and eating the flesh forbidden by the Torah.

I give you those alternative secular and religious Jewish perspectives to make this point: the verse is mot simply balking at them eating unclean meat. The verse can be understood as noting that these were groups who engaged in such as part of a larger religious practice. Such phenomena existed in Isaiah’s time, and the passage predicted that, in the future, they (those people who purified themselves and consumed swine flesh and mouse flesh as part of idolatrous rituals in secret gardens) would one day be wiped out.

`Abdullah wrote:
«Did not God know that pig flesh would be clean later?»

Even your own faith permits meats forbidden in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (e.g. camel). It seems it is possible for God to abrogate aspects of previously existing dietary laws [perhaps such falls within the scope of the abrogations Christ brought, according to surat Al `Imran]. If such abrogations are put into play, that need not entail prior ignorance on God’s part.

`Abdullah wrote:
«Quran is irrelevant to your problem since Quran has its own perspective.»

It has relevance to the subject of Muslims telling Christians that Jesus declared that all of the Mosaic Law must be kept for all time. Your own faith has Christ explicitly alluding to certain changes (which is what we see in Matthew as well).

`Abdullah wrote:
«Jesus who said explicitly that the law would lead you to get the( etranl life ) in one hand. And Paul who said explicitly that the law would lead you to death on the other hand.»

In Matthew 19 Jesus stated that one who wanted to keep eternal life had to keep the commandments He went on to list. He did not say that was all that was needed. But He did make clear such was required. Paul takes the same position, stating that [unrepentant] adulterers, et cetera, could not inherit the Kingdom (i.e. Paul too taught that one is required to keep such commandments). So Paul and Jesus are on the same page on this subject: accepting Christ’s authority is required, and though aspects of the Mosaic Law have been abrogated, there remain commandments which one is required to keep (such as those pertaining to adultery, murder, which were explicitly mentioned by both Christ and Paul).

“the verse is mot simply balking at them eating unclean meat.”
Even so! The problem still exists! God named eating that flesh as abomination( unclean) as if he didn’t know that would be clean later.
I’ve asked many christians about that verse, yet no one has answered me with a satisfied answer. You simply cannot.

“Even your own faith permits meats forbidden in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (e.g. camel). ”
So you admit that there’s a contradiction in your bible you cannot solve except by referring to Quran as if it has the same problem?

Then I’m telling you: NO you cannot refer to Quran since,again and again Quran has its own perspective. You may read Surah 4:160, for example.
You cannot say the same thing since you believe in the OT as it’s. We do not!

“He went on to list. He did not say that was all that was needed. But He did make clear such was required. Paul takes the same position, stating that [unrepentant] adulterers, et cetera, could not inherit the Kingdom (i.e. Paul too taught that one is required to keep such commandment”
This is a typical of how you play with the language. Is your heart satisfied by this? Jesus in that passage was more than clear. He was saying (((the least))) you shouldn’t break nor should you teach so, man!
Where is this attitude in paul’s writings?
” No! Rather, the stain has covered their hearts of that which they were earning” QT83:14.

Paul wrote:
«Denis that is an apologetic fudge that ignores the plain meaning of texts.»

How so? Could you be more specific? If you want to get into the nuances and indicators of a specific text, I’m more than happy to explore such with you.

***

`Abdullah wrote:
«The problem still exists! God named eating that flesh as abomination( unclean) as if he didn’t know that would be clean later.»

This is where abrogation comes in. Something can be forbidden in one context and permitted in another. The relevant word, sheqets, can mean unclean (and extra-Scriptural uses of the term and related derivatives acknowledge that something so described can be made clean [for example Ashkenazi Jews came to use sheqets coloquially as “sheygets” and “shiqsa” for male and female non-Jews, and yet the term ceases to apply to such people if they convert to Judaism]).

`Abdullah wrote:
«So you admit that there’s a contradiction in your bible you cannot solve»

It’s not a mere contradiction. It is an issue of abrogation, where something is forbidden in one context and permitted in another.

`Abdullah wrote:
«read Surah 4:160»

Which itself refers to a sort of abrogation, where food which was Halal is suddenly made Haram for a certain people at a certain time. You can say there is a precise reason why the Halal is made Haram for them at that time, but the point remains that abrogation is possible in dietary law.

`Abdullah wrote:
«you believe in the OT as it’s»

I believe aspects of the Law recorded in the OT have been abrogated.

`Abdullah wrote:
«This is a typical of how you play with the language.»

I actually grapple with the nuances of the text. Simply waving one’s hand and calling it a game is unhelpful. You should get into the textual indicators.

`Abdullah wrote:
«He was saying (((the least))) you shouldn’t break»

I addressed this already. Here again is my previous response:

Note: these commandments, i.e. the ones being discussed in that Sermon. And note that some of those commandments in that Sermon constitute alterations to the Law (such as, for example, the law on divorce). So one is not required to keep the entirety of the Mosaic Law. One is required to keep the Law which Christ brings forth (this is the clear implication of Matthew 19:3-12, where an amendment Christ brings trumps what Moses permitted).

It is here that your comment on surat Al `Imran 3:50 would be appreciated. Does that verse not itself imply a situation where the people following Christ were under the rules He brought, not the rules which existed prior to His coming?

`Abdullah wrote:
«Where is this attitude in paul’s writings?»

Both Christ and Paul teach that portions of the Law have been abrogated, but there remains commandments which people are required to keep. Ergo, their attitudes towards the Law are essentially the same.

“This is where abrogation comes in. Something can be forbidden in one context and permitted in another”
Believe me I know what the abrogation is. What I don’t understand why God named eating pig flesh (((at the end of days))) as ((( abomination)))?!!

Regarding Quran, I’ve shown you that some foods are forbidden for Bani Israel, yet that food is clean by itself according to Quran. Quran has nothing to do with your problem.

The law being abrogated by new law – notice w’re still enclosed in the law- has nothing to do with the law being a garbage or the law leads to death. You got this very point, didn’t you?

Actually, the text does not explicitly say pork is forbidden at the end of days. It mentions people, apparently in Isaiah’s own time (as per both secular and religious Jewish readings of the passage) who consumed pork and other unclean things as part of a larger ritual, and it predicted a future in which such people will be wiped out.

As for the word sheqets, I have already noted that how the term is used even by Jews tacitly acknowledges that something so described can be converted.

`Abdullah wrote:
«Regarding Quran, I’ve shown you that some foods are forbidden for Bani Israel»

The point was only one of abrogation. God can take something forbidden and make it permissible. And God can likewise take something permissible and make it forbidden.

Here is a variation of a question I asked previously: do you agree that surat Al `Imran 3:50 means the people following Christ were under the system of rules He brought, not the system of rules which existed before He came?

`Abdullah wrote:
«The law being abrogated by new law – notice w’re still enclosed in the law- has nothing to do with the law being a garbage or the law leads to death.»

This is more an issue of your own understanding (or dare I say misunderstanding?). Paul himself acknowledges that there are commandments which must be kept (again, see 1 Cor 6:9-10, Rom 13:9). So not even Paul claimed that all law is “garbage”.

“Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.”

““Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.”
–Paul, Romans 3:31
This is just a general theme in all paul’s writings! He stated that because he had already established that you’re free from the law as verse 21 shows, but from his own satanic perspective, this is the “real” establishing of the law. In other words, he played with the language as you do. Of course Jesus has nothing to do with that nor does the abrogation concept have.
It’s like saying this’s house is so dirty, but from my perspective this is the best way to say it’s clean!
I know it does not make sense! but this the reality of your prophet paul.

Regarding Isaiah 66:17, your answer is repeated.

“Or [they are] like darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand [therein], he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not granted light – for him there is no light.” QT 24:40.

`Abdullah wrote:
«He stated that because he had already established that you’re free from the law»

Not quite. But I will at least say that the subject of Paul’s attitude towards the law can at times be difficult to understand (perhaps alluded to in 2 Peter 3:15-16). This is at the center of disputes about justification. Classical Protestants would say those who are saved, are saved by faith alone, separate from the law or any other kind of work, but they would add that a saved person will nonetheless strive to keep God’s commandments. There are Catholics who take the faith/works dichotomy as referring to aspects of the ceremonial law (like circumcision, which sets the stage of much Pauline discussion on the subject).

Whatever the case, Paul does not advocate lawlessness. On the contrary, he clear lays out laws which people must still keep (even if they are not under the Mosaic Law in its entirety). Here are two passages which I referenced previously, in this regard:

Romans 13:9, Douay Rheims
For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Those cover pretty much the same commandments that Christ raised in Matthew 19. Ergo, we see Christ and Paul being on the same page regarding the fact that one has to keep those laws (i.e. those who unrepentantly break them will not be in the Kingdom).

`Abdullah wrote:
«Jesus has nothing to do with that nor does the abrogation concept have.»

We see Christ abrogating aspects of the Mosaic Law in the fifth and ninetheen chapters of Matthew (ironically the very chapters you and Paul Williams have turned to in attempting to argue Christ required the keeping of the whole law). We also see Christ bestowing upon the episcopacy a power to “bind and loose” (Matt. 16:19, 18:18). So from both Paul and Christ we see the same concept: aspects of the Mosaic Law have been abrogated, but there remain commandments people must keep.

`Abdullah wrote:
«Regarding Isaiah 66:17, your answer is repeated.»

It would be more helpful to actually engage the text, and what I have written about the nuances of the text (as well as Jewish understandings of the text). It is unhelpful to simply declare that I’m playing language games. If you’re not engaging my actual arguments, or getting into the text, such a charge seems unfounded.

All the verses you qouted from Paul have the same problem of Roman3 and as Isaid it’s a theme you can see in all paul’s writings
1 cor 6:12 & Roman 13:8 show you how to avoid the law.
For Paul everything is permissible ( 1 cor 6:12), yet you should not do certain things. Again this has nothing to do with the abrogation of old law by new one!
Paul said explicitly the law lead you to death, man! How can the matter be more clear than this? This has nothing to do with ( keep the commandments to get the etrnal life) what so ever!

Isaiah 66:17, I submitt I can do nothing for your heart. You insist to see other words on the text as you understand 3 to be 1.

” And he to whom Allah has not granted light – for him there is no light.” QT 24:40. Ask Allaah(sw) the light.

I agree that Jesus is saying that if anyone keeps the law perfectly he will have eternal life.

I don’t agree that the text actually tells us whether it is possible for any of us to achieve that.

All it tells us is that the rich young man failed to keep the law because otherwise he would have given more of his wealth to the poor.

I’m sure you don’t like Mark’s account which tells the man to take up the cross and follow Jesus:

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Robster quoted:
«Matthew 5:17–18 seems to make it clear (at least to me) that Jesus intended his followers follow all of the Jewish laws.»

Except it doesn’t actually say that. It states that not even the smallest portion of the Law could pass away unless all was fulfilled. Then later in the same chapter we see aspects of the Law changing (cf. verse 31). That seems to imply the entirety has been fulfilled in some sense, permitting changes (see my fuller response to `Abdullah, above).

Robster quoted:
«When I toured Jerusalem, the tour guide told me us that “Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, ad died as a Jew.” If that’s true, how are his followers exempted from the laws of the parent religion?»

It’s a popular statement, but a potentially loaded one. Some of the earliest Rabbinic references to Jesus are scathing, accusing Him of having diverged from the faith in various ways. The New Testament likewise has Jesus being accused of things contrary to the Jewish faith by His Jewish opponents. So, yes, Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew. But that does not preclude the possibility of Him diverging from certain popular contemporary interpretations of Judaism (on the contrary, He does precisely that according to both the NT and Jewish polemics against Him).

Paul Williams,
You left out the rest of the story and distorted it by leaving it out:

Matthew 19:22-26

22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

the man’s money was his god; he could not let go of it; therefore he actually broke the first and second commandments.

Jesus is showing that humans cannot keep the law and cannot be good.

No one can be saved by their own strength.

But with God, all things are possible, You have to realize that your good works are filthy and dirty and you are a sinner and helpless to save yourself and then turn in repentance and faith to trust Jesus to save you.

All things are possible with God = God and His grace can save and change you; therefore repent and turn to Jesus in faith = the same message of the apostle Paul.

the one who continues reading the passage is the one who distorted it? yeah. right.

It is you who have distorted the passage by leaving out the reaction of the man and Jesus’ final words on the issue.

Matthew 19:22-26

22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

the man’s money was his god; he could not let go of it; therefore he actually broke the first and second commandments.

I say;
-Show me in OT where the OT believers in the sacrificial system believe the Messiah is God and worshiped him.
-Show me in OT where the OT believers in the sacrificial system believe God will become a flesh.
-Show me in OT where the OT believers in the sacrificial system worshiped Man, God-Man?
-Show me in OT where the OT believers in the sacrificial system worshiped 3 persons 1 God.

Find below the God which the OT believers in the sacrificial system worshiped.

“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
“For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
“You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
“O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20
“You alone [bad] are Yahweh.” Nehemiah 9:6

Messiah is God, worthy of worship – Mark 14:60-64
These are the words of Jesus & the
Proper interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14 & Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 2:1-12. Messiah is the eternal Son who was incarnated and born of the virgin Mary; Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 52:13-15 & 53:1-12 – The Messiah provides the atonement for sin.

temple , here is a verse from the quran which employs the word “tawfeeq”

He said, “O my people, have you considered: if I am upon clear evidence from my Lord and He has provided me with a good provision from Him… ? And I do not intend to differ from you in that which I have forbidden you; I only intend reform as much as I am able. And my success is not but through Allah . Upon him I have relied, and to Him I return.

. i ask, in ot, did god cause tawfeeq in the hearts of people? yes or no?

Doesn’t the Qur’an agree that God gave the law to the Israelites (Moses, David, Solomon) and the nation (Bani Israel” بنی اسراییل = the sons of Israel ) kept on breaking it?

Look at the history of the world until now, even now; with all the fighting, adulteries, sexual sins, wars, divorces, greed, terrorism, oppression, racism, bigotry, anger, jealousies, pride, arrogance, cruelties, etc.

You don’t see the truth of the sin nature in human kind?

“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Genesis 6:5

Jesus said the roots of murder is hatred and sinful anger in the heart.
Matthew 5:21-26

Jesus said the roots of adultery is sexual lusts and fantasies in the thoughts of the heart.
Matthew 5:27-30

20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

We recognize the nature of sin, which is why we know that one man being put to death on a Roman cross does not change anything.

What changes it is sincere repentance and adhering to God’s law.

Humans have temptations to do evil (this is what you call “sin nature”). But they also have goodness. It is our job to enhance the goodness inside us by trying our best to obey God. Just like the quote about Caleb following God (Number 14:24). Or Miqdad ibn Al-Aswad and the Prophet’s companions at the battle of Badr who learnt the lessons from the mistakes of the Israelites mentioned in Numbers 14 and the lessons of the fruits of obeying God.

“Doesn’t the Qur’an agree that God gave the law to the Israelites (Moses, David, Solomon) and the nation (Bani Israel” بنی اسراییل = the sons of Israel ) kept on breaking it?”
It doesn’t say that God gave the Bani Israel the Law despite knowing full well they wouldn’t keep it. You are missing the point Ken. My issue is why give them the Law when they can’t keep it in the first place and then tell them that they can keep it? Paul says no one can keep the Law. Then why give it to the Israelites for 13 centuries and punish them every time they brake it???? It’s like stamping on a goldfish for not being able to clime a tree.
The Quran says they brake it but it does NOT support the Paulian view that NO ONE can keep the Law.

4:155 Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: Our hearts are covered; nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe EXCEPT A FEW.

5:13 But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places (changing their scriptures so yes the Quran does recognize the corruption of scripture done by the Jews) and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them except A FEW OF THEM; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).

5:71 And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but MANY OF THEM (so not all) became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do.

5:78 Those who disbelieved FROM AMONG the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Maryam; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.

7:164 And when A PARTY OF THEM said: Why do you admonish a with a severe chastisement? They said: To be free from blame before your Lord, and that haply they may guard (against evil).
7:165 So when they neglected what they had been reminded of, We delivered THOSE WHO FORBADE EVIL and We overtook those who were unjust with an evil chastisement because they transgressed.

7:170 And (as for) THOSE who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the RIGHT DOERS

It is possible to keep the Law and be pleasing to God. Many, it seems, did so:

‘When Herod was king of Judea, there was a Jewish priest named Zechariah. He was a member of the priestly order of Abijah, and his wife, Elizabeth, was also from the priestly line of Aaron. Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in God’s eyes, careful to obey all of the Lord’s commandments and regulations.’

Job was also a righteous man, a true believer, a God-fearing man. But it does not mean “sinless”.

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.

Job 1:1

so those verses have to be interpreted in light of Jesus’ statement in

Matthew 7:11“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

and many other passages that say we are all sinners and in need of a Savior from sin.

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

The Righteousness of God Through Faith
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 3:9-23

So the “righteousness” of Elizabeth, Zechariah, and Job was a relative righteousness, not sinlessness, and it was because they had first gotten grace from God, because they were true believers, like Noah.

8 But Noah found grace/ favor in the eyes of the Lord.
9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation.
Noah walked with God.

Genesis 6:8-9

Notice the grace / favor was poured out FIRST, then he had the ability to be righteous and walk with God.

So, good works and a holy life are the result of true faith, not conditions to first be fulfilled and not earning God’s favor or love or acceptance. You cannot earn God’s favor or acceptance.

God has to first come into your life and heart and change you, by repentance and faith (Mark 1:15; Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:1-9) so that you can then do good works and grow in practical righteousness (sanctification) (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26).

Ken ,would you advice someone to ” keep the commandments” to get the etrnal life as Jesus did? The answer is a big NO. You wouldn’t !
Why?
Becacuse you don’t follow Jesus rather you follow your false prophet Paul who taught that keeping the law would lead to death, and the law is just a garbage.

We have no obligation to drag Jesus’ words to be read in light of your Paul’s teachings. Paul’s words have no authority, and you should consider them as such. Your false prophet couldn’t present himslf to the disciples of Jesus as an authoritative man by saying Jesus’ had appeared to him. If he had spoken with God’s words as you believe, why didn’t he use this claim to the disciples of Jesus?

“Jesus said the roots of murder is hatred and sinful anger in the heart.
Matthew 5:21-26”

Since you are a parrot, i’ll do the same thing :

::::::::::::::::menstrual rags?::::::::::::::::

I thought Yahweh was pleased with blood sacrifices, and what was a woman’s life back then but a life wrought with sacrifices, not just a monthly flow of blood, but having to suffer a higher mortality rate for both women in childbirth and their children back then?

Furthermore, should the scriptures about our righteousness being nothing but filthy rags, and the heart being “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked,” be interpreted woodenly, dogmatically? They may apply to some people at some times whenever they act deceitful and wicked, especially when they are at their lowest and weakest points. But does it make sense to take the book of Jeremiah’s exaggerated ancient Near Eastern way of speaking, and bake it in an oven until it becomes as dry and hard as a brick of dogma, and make that brick a cornerstone of your theology?

That also ignores the flexibility of the “heart” as seen in New Testament verses where Jesus is depicted as putting a positive spin on “the heart,” saying, “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart” (Luke 6:45 & Mat. 12:35) and taught that people ought to “Love God with all their heart,” (Mat. 22:37). How is that possible if the “heart” is “wicked and deceitful above all things?”

book of king says :

” Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life.”

“”Jesus said the roots of murder is hatred and sinful anger in the heart.””

nobody is born with hate and murder, nobody learns this from the mothers womb.

ot is testimony to the fact that people used their heart to do the commandment “love thy lord with ALL thy heart”

when yhwh sent laws and rituals, he sent to a people who used to get angry, who used to hate and who used to sin. he gave his instructions to control these problems and when people put these instructions to action we see stuff like

Jesus said basically the same thing in
Matthew 5:20
and
Matthew 5:48 – “you must be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect”

But He also knows that no one can actually be perfect or sinless, so the preaching of the law “keep the commandments” is suppossed to help you realize that you are a sinner and that you cannot be perfect and you cannot keep the law, because your heart is full of sinful thoughts and motives (Matthew 5:21-30 – sinful anger, hatred, lusts); Mark 7:20-23 – external sins come from sinful thoughts, Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9)

The law is our school-master / tudor / guardian that tells us right from wrong and says “don’t do that” and “do that”, and when we realize we cannot, we are frustrated and driven to repent and trust Christ by faith, the perfect righteous one who paid the penalty for our sins and offers forgiveness and power over sin.

see
Galatians 3:23- 24
the law is our school master / tudor / guardian that leads/ drives us to Christ by faith

yhwh never said that the laws job is to “expose sin” he says that his laws /instructions/ guidance help you walk your way to heaven. you lied against yhwh and what came out of his mind. yhwh NEVER SAID you NEED the MURDER of yhwh as a BLOODY go between to WALK his laws

neither ezekiel or jeremiah mention anything about ritual killing of a god BEFORE god give a new heart. intersting thing is god said he can REPLACE heart of human which will obey him perfectly and he does not need ritual killing to do that.

quote :
This has probably occurred to you at some point, but do you know where else none of the words “pardon”, “forgiveness”, nor “atonement”, – the familiar “selicha, mechila, and kappara” – nor any derivative of them appear even once? Isaiah 53

where did yhwh say that his laws (torah)could not give POWER over lust, hatred and anger ?
where did yhwh say that BELIEF in the suffering servant will give power over lust, hatred and anger? where did yhwh said one even need to BELIEVE in the PUNISHMENT of the suffering servant?

Nobody has ever perfectly obeyed the 9th command nor the 10th command – do not lie (9) and do not covet (10). That’s why Jesus explained the commands deeper about the roots of sin in the thoughts of the heart. Matthew 5:21-30; Mark 7:20-23

Even Muhammad asked for forgiveness for his sins/ or indicates he is a sinner 3 times in the Qur’an. Surah
40:55, 48:2, and 47:19:

“the law is like a mirror or an x-ray – it exposes our sin, because it shows us where we fall short all the time.”

gods law was to tell the jews “we fall short all the time” ?
god made EASILY CORRUPTIBLE human and then he sends laws which tell jews ” you all fall short all the time” ?

so EASILY corruptible creature won’t even be able to do laws even if they were EASY to do.
why would a “REPENTFUL” sinner want to know “we fall short all the time”
when his god is telling him you are doomed, why even repent. maybe you will FALL short in repentance?
this implies that the god you worship was at FAULT for creating MESS in the beginning.

‘In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.’

you are just repeating the verse without understanding it with all the other texts and context of whole Bible that I wrote. True believers got grace first, then were able to walk with the Lord and obey His commandments, but never perfectly. Like Noah, Job, etc. which I proved.

Matthew 7:11 shows Jesus teaches all are evil, – points to the sin nature within us.

Matthew 5:48 – Jesus shows that Luke 1:6, Job 1:1, Genesis 6:8-9 is about a relative righteousness of true believers who are growing in sanctification, but the only Perfect righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to those who have faith in Christ.

“the law is like a mirror or an x-ray – it exposes our sin, because it shows us where we fall short all the time.”

gods law was to tell the jews “we fall short all the time” ?
god made EASILY CORRUPTIBLE human and then he sends laws which tell jews ” you all fall short all the time” ?

so EASILY corruptible creature won’t even be able to do laws even if they were EASY to do.
why would a “REPENTFUL” sinner want to know “we fall short all the time”
when his god is telling him you are doomed, why even repent. maybe you will FALL short in repentance?
this implies that the god you worship was at FAULT for creating MESS in the beginning.

QT 45
“Woe to every sinful liar
Who hears the verses of Allah recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.
And when he knows anything of Our verses, he takes them in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.
Before them is Hell, and what they had earned will not avail them at all nor what they had taken besides Allah as allies. And they will have a great punishment.”

“He is just a “positive thinking” type of motivational speaker who makes people feel comfortable in their sins.”
Isn’t that what James white and pretty much all preachers do? Make people feel comfortable in their sins. Just believe that an innocent person died for you.
I’m sure you’ll write: you don’t understand what we believe like JW always says when cornered.

Ken Temple
September 2, 2017 • 8:06 pm
You don’t know Mormonism. Mormonism is even more pagan and polytheistic than Hinduism. It has millions of gods in its theology

I say;
Thanks Ken for that clip of Dr. James White. It does not matter whether you believe in 2,3,4,5,6………. Persons/persons God. Just by adding another person to that only 1 person who is alone and the True God of Abraham, Jesus, Noah etc. makes one a polytheist and/or idol worshiper. So, it does not make Mormons MORE polytheistic than any believer of multi persons God like Trinity believing Christians. They have all added at least one or more persons/thing in that one God of Abraham and that is what is called polytheism and/or idol worship.

Trying to count other polytheist’s God in persons as more than yours, doesn’t solve your problem as a polytheist as the Bible defines it to be. If you believed God can do whatever He wants by becoming a flesh in Christ as 100% God 100% man, then you are in line with those who believed in God cow and they worship the cow as 100% God 100% cow. Muslims, Jews and Unitarian Christians are in line with the Bible that teaches God is one, only and alone. Jesus said the ONLY TRUE God of Abraham is the Father and not the Son(Jesus) Christ. I will not forget about other God men like Sai Baba, Haile Selaissie etc. whom their believers just like you believed God became flesh/created. We do not believe God CAN become created because created cancels un created. The Bible said God cannot be formed.

“Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

So, God cannot be formed in Jesus Christ according to the above verse.

that is not what we preach. “just” believe is weak, “that” makes it just believing in some historical event; and not “trusting in Christ as a person in all that the NT says He is” and “an innocent person” does not define who the innocent person – the content and doctrine of who He is totally must be trusted in.

and “just believe that” is wrong.

It is repent and believe in the person of Jesus Christ as He is in all the NT and His atonement and resurrection.

No; because He is God in the flesh, God the eternal Son, who became human – John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; John 17:5

God can do that – become a human and fulfill the prophesies of Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; Isaiah 53 and Daniel 7:13-14 and Daniel 9:24-27 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 16, and Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 if He wants to.
Mark 14:60-64 proves it.

Nop. Non of the OT passages speak of dying for someone’s sins. Isaiah 53 talks about a servant dying from their transgressions. Their is a mistranslation there. It is says for our transgressions while it should have been FROM our transgressions. Btw that passage isn’t speaking of dying for someone’s SINS Ken. That’s just you adding that into the text.
“No; because He is God in the flesh,”
That’s not a refutation. When someone does evil can we say well if it’s God in the flesh then that’s ok because he can do that???

An innocent dying for my sins/crimes doesn’t become righteousness if God does it. It’s wrong for a human being to do that (which is what Jesus was) and it’s wrong for God to do that. ESPECIALLY God!

Isaiah 53:6
“All of us like sheep have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way,
but the LORD has caused the iniquity of US ALL to fall on him.”

As a result of the [p]anguish of His soul,
He will see [q]it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

Ken Temple
August 30, 2017 • 4:32 am
No; because He is God in the flesh, God the eternal Son, who became human – John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; John 17:5

God can do that – become a human and fulfill the prophesies of Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; Isaiah 53 and Daniel 7:13-14 and Daniel 9:24-27 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 16, and Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 if He wants to.
Mark 14:60-64 proves it

I say;
Look at someone(Ken Temple) believing God can become flesh, but blaming Mother Teresa for saying to Hindus to believe in their God who became flesh. Hypocrisy. It is a child who always believes the toy he is holding in his hand is not a toy but the toy in another child’s hand is a toy.

You and Hindus and many idol worshipers have the same concept of God becoming flesh, so you are in the same line of idolatry while Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Christians worship the God of Abraham who is one and never became flesh or formed again like how Jesus was formed again later as God.

Proof
“Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

The meaning of atonement is there, especially verse 10 – he offered Himself as a guilt offering. That is atonement.
And verses 11-12 speak of justifying the many = justification – see Romans 4, Galatians 2:16-21; chapter 3, 4, 5, Romans 5:1. “the many” – ” a ransom for many” – Mark 10:45 – Jesus’ own words, claiming He is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, also in Mark 14:24 – “the blood of the covenant poured out for many” – that is substitutionary ransom atonement.

quote :
Since “asham” can mean “guilt” or “guilt offering,” the only way to deduce the meaning is through context. When the context is ritual sacrifice and/or Temple services, as in Leviticus, then it makes sense to say that “asham” means “guilt offering.” When the context has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ritual sacrifice and Temple services, as in Isaiah 53, then it makes sense to say that it means “guilt.” That’s just plain logic.

your god says he abhors human sacrifice, how does it become okay to perform human sacrifice? he went against his own law.

how come you believe blasphemous belief that god became a levitical animal sacrifice?

“The difference is that in Christianity God loves sinners FIRST, before they are able to repent and believe and pours out grace upon sinners from all the nations – Revelation 5:9; 7:9, whereas in Islam, you as a slave must earn Allah’s love and try to love Allah first, and then MAYBE, Insha’ allah, He will love you back.”

accepting the christian cross would mean one has accepted that he is a FILTHY sinner with the stain/curse of original sin and god has nothing good to say about him. you are only tolerated because of the murder of jesus, if it weren’t for jesus’ murder, what is your worth in gods eyes? now you tell me, if god did not kill jesus, would god STILL LOVE YOU FIRST? you never said anything about what ISLAM says about the human being. islam did not say human is cursed with original sin or that he is filthy menstrual rags. so why you left that bit out?
why did you leave the part where God said human is capable of doing good? why did you leave the part which says human is not “born in sin” ?

since ken temple admitted that yhwh is an impotent and weak god , he admitted that his GUIDANCE has no power to lead to eternal life, he admitted that even when prophets had the SPIRIT of yhwh in them, the SPIRIT OF SATAN was more POWERFUL and made them sin

Then ken must also admit that jesus is also USELESS for repentance

When the prophet Samuel anointed Saul to be king, he said that when Saul met other prophets, “Then the spirit of YHVH will come upon you mightily …”

YET THEY STILL CANNOT DO THE GUIDANCE OF yHWH

this MEANS satan is MORE POWERFUL than yhwh

ijaz ahmed wrote :

The problem is, Christians claim they don’t have to follow the law to be saved, they are saved through the death of Christ. Yet, almost every metric they use to judge a person’s acceptance of Christ is whether they follow Church rituals (attending Church frequently), or whether they follow Biblical law (don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t perform sexual immoral acts, etc). How Christians avoid this obvious contradiction in thinking, is to claim that one does not have to follow the law of God to be saved, but when a person accepts Christ and are saved, they are inclined to follow the law of God. Such reasoning is futile because as mentioned above, both Christians and non-Christians have been known to make these same changes in their lives without converting to Christianity. Muslims who practise their faith, meet these same criteria, whether it is not partaking in drugs, praying often, giving charity, dressing modestly, or avoiding sexual immorality. If Muslims can achieve this without having a need for the ‘transformative power of Christ’, then of what use is Christianity exactly?

a christian wrote :

If there is no condemnation of sin, grace may abound, but sin abounds all the more, which is why Christianity fails by its own standards. Belief in Jesus’ death on the cross doesn’t free humanity from petiness, bitterness, or strife. Would that it did, we would not need to be having this conversation.

Christians have been telling Jews for centuries that the law cannot save because it gives you a choice. It doesn’t make you holy. The thing is Gean, the gospel doesn’t make humans holy either.

There are countless groups of Christians who all claim that their reading of the gospel is the true reading, and they all claim justification through the cross, but none of them actually live a life free of judgment or fear.
I grew up Protestant, had Catholic family, and Orthodox friends, so my exposure to the Church (including university education) is pretty broad when it comes to Christianity.
The problem with your view of Jesus, his crucifixion, and Christianity, is that your view fails in the same way the law fails.

Jesus may have been a great man, (and for the record, I don’t dislike Jesus.) But his Crucifixion doesn’t actually release a person from fear of death, nor does it release one from sinful desire. In fact, I have observed firsthand that Christians have a haughtiness of spirit because they believe that G-d will forgive them all their wrongs no matter what, no matter how severe.
Belief in Jesus creates a kind of spiritual wellfare check where the recipient then looks down on the one who refuses the check.

All Jews want is to practice their religion in peace the way their ancestors have done. You have provided an explanation for sin, (according to your understanding,) but that is just the problem, ITS YOUR PRIVATE UNDERSTANDING.

We have to have a baseline for discussion. A starting point. For Jews, the starting point is “does this ideology mesh with the plain meaning of the commands in the Jewish bible?”

To put this another way. When G-d was on Sinai speaking to Moses and the Jewish people, (the context in which the bible was 1st delivered to humans,) did G-d talk about a sin nature? Did he mention Satan and a fall into sin that humans must be saved from? No.

He said to Israel that if they observed the commandments he was giving them that day, that they would be blessed and live in the land. He said the commandments were not too hard or beyond their ability to observe. He even said that the covenant of Sinai was his covenant of love with Israel.

So Gean, while I understand why you read scripture the way you do, its not the Jewish way of reading the scripture.

Because the New Testament, the True Injeel, انجیل حقیقی teaches that; and it is not blasphemous, since the eternal Son of God voluntarily came to be the fulfillment of all the animal sacrifices in the OT.

“is the writer saying that the suffering servant is to make his life an offering in the same sense of making animal life as an offering for sins as is found in leviticus ? … whatever the hebrew word is behind “offering” is it meant to be taken literal ?”

אשם can mean guilt or can refer to a guilt offering. It does not refer to making an offering of a person and very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.

The sentence is, in effect, calling for repentance which, by extension, heals the suffering servant – granting him long life and children – rather than him continuing to be in pain due to the problems of society.

“what is the reason behind god crushing him?”

There is a general thread of God wishing to punish the wicked, but held back by the righteous who are compassionate. This is usually part and parcel with God making it particularly difficult for the righteous who, in effect, are defying the order God desires.
In context I the person is very ill and sick from the beginning. God specifically is making his life harder to create repentance by this individual.

Because Islam is wrong, and I don’t have to include everything in an argument if I don’t want to.

If you believe mankind is basically good; then that contradicts Surah 16:61 and a bunch of other verses in the Qur’an.
Surah 14:34 – mankind is truly a wrongdoer; an ingrate
Surah 12:53 – the human soul is an inciter to evil

But Islamic theology denying original sin and corruption in the heart and roots of sin as internal is a contradiction to those verses and the reality of humans. Islam says the fault is mostly by one’s upbringing and environment – putting the blame on parents or circumstances rather than the person himself/herself.

The Bible teaches the fault is within us, not outside of us.

This is a good overview of our sin problem and good introduction to the book of Genesis.

quote :
Because the New Testament, the True Injeel, انجیل حقیقی teaches that; and it is not blasphemous, since the eternal Son of God voluntarily came to be the fulfillment of all the animal sacrifices in the OT.

end quote

yhwh said there was power in the blood of animals and burnt offerings. yhwh would have puked over human sacrifices. yhwh says blood of human (you do know that your jesus had CREATED blood within him, right ?) POLLUTES the land .

and use your brains for gods sakes. when your god BECAME meat and blood , he was LIMITED and created.
there was no divine nature within it. so your god willingly became ungodly.
“godLESS”

“like a lamb He was led to the slaughter”
Isaiah 53:7

it is easy to handle those who are persecuted. they are like a lamb

use your brains.

your evil missionary deception has been caught out. you have kind of admitted that islam says that God loves human beings more than the 3 pagans in trinity.
you now went to another topic because you couldn’t defend your INITIAL claim.
just to let you know. IF no disbelievers received the message of God, islam says they would not receive punishment. so what were you saying about God loving first?

”
If you believe mankind is basically good; then that contradicts Surah 16:61 and a bunch of other verses in the Qur’an.”

how many times WILL YOU REPEAT THIS LIE? when christians sin, why do people who are not involved in the sin use the plural? “we have done x, y and z” even though people were not involved?
the focus of that verse cannot be prophets, children, righteous.

quote :

Surah 14:34 – mankind is truly a wrongdoer; an ingrate

quote :

27. Allah will keep firm those who believe, with the word that stands firm in this world (i.e. they will keep on worshipping Allah Alone and none else), and in the Hereafter. And Allah will cause to go astray those who are Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.), and Allah does what He wills.

28. Have you not seen those who have changed the Blessings of Allah into disbelief (by denying Prophet Muhammad and his Message of Islam), and caused their people to dwell in the house of destruction?

29. Hell, in which they will burn, – and what an evil place to settle in!

30. And they set up rivals to Allah, to mislead (men) from His Path! Say: “Enjoy (your brief life)! But certainly, your destination is the (Hell) Fire!”

31. Say (O Muhammad ) to ‘Ibadi (My slaves) who have believed, that they should perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend in charity out of the sustenance We have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending.

32. Allah is He Who has created the heavens and the earth and sends down water (rain) from the sky, and thereby brought forth fruits as provision for you; and He has made the ships to be of service to you, that they may sail through the sea by His Command; and He has made rivers (also) to be of service to you.

33. And He has made the sun and the moon, both constantly pursuing their courses, to be of service to you; and He has made the night and the day, to be of service to you.

34. And He gave you of all that you asked for, and if you count the Blessings of Allah, never will you be able to count them. Verily! Man is indeed an extreme wrong-doer, – a disbeliever (an extreme ingrate, denies Allah’s Blessings by disbelief, and by worshipping others besides Allah, and by disobeying Allah and His Prophet Muhammad ).

Surah 12:53 – the human soul is an inciter to evil

53. “And I free not myself (from the blame). Verily, the (human) self is inclined to evil, except when my Lord bestows His Mercy (upon whom He wills). Verily, my Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

”
But Islamic theology denying original sin and corruption in the heart and roots of sin as internal is a contradiction to those verses and the reality of humans. ”

original sin is a lie . yhwh blessed the hebrews when they used their hearts to connect with him .
NO animal and no jesus

and it seems like the SUFFERING servant himself is a SINNER, he himself repents when his god crushes him.
he repents so he can be FORGIVEN.

quote :

G-d told Cain that if he repents and does what is tight and pleasing to G-d, he will master his sin.”

quote :

G-d created absolutely everything that exists, and he said it was all very good.

“Islam says the fault is mostly by one’s upbringing and environment – putting the blame on parents or circumstances rather than the person himself/herself.”

this is true in a sense. if your parents sin in front of you and you are born in place where there is NOTHING but sin, sin and sin like slums and ghettos, then environment is to blame. the child would grow up and learn nothing but filth, on the other hand it is POSSIBLE THE SAME child TURNS away from the filth and live a life of repentance and doing good and fighting of satanic temptations .

”
The Bible teaches the fault is within us, not outside of us.”

the bible is a contradictory book. even the spirit of yhwh which was in yhwhs prophets could not prevent prophets from sinning , meaning the spirit of satan was probably more powerful than yhwhs spirit.

why your false pagan god yhwh PREVENTED the human flesh of jesus from sinning , but he couldn’t do the same for adam? why is he a biased god? you said that the flesh and divine nature do not mix, so there is NO WAY the flesh experienced the divine nature. then why is it that yhwh PUTS his spirit into prophets but he cant stop them FROM sinning, but when he puts his pnuema in CREATED flesh callED jesus, he stops him from sinning?

”
This is a good overview of our sin problem and good introduction to the book of Genesis.”

Ken it says he BORE the sin of many. That is not the atonement doctrine!! He (whoever that is) bares their sins, he doesn’t atone for the sins. God said clearly in the OT that he DESPISES human sacrifices! Yet you want Isaiah 53 to represent atonement of sin. That’s desperation.

I can read perfectly fine, thank you very much. Amazing that I have to hear this from a Christian who is an expert in verbal gymnastics and never reads the clear meaning of the text but uses Shakespearean interpretation to fit his/her ideology. It’s clear you have an indoctrinated and a programmed mind to see only what you want to see and to interpret the explicit in light of the implicit ALL THE TIME!

“The LORD was pleased to crush Him, if He would rendered Himself a guilt offering” – Isaiah 53:10

That is clearly atonement.

And Daniel 9:24-27 also mentions “Messiah” twice, once about His death (Messiah will be cut off)
See Isaiah 53:8 – “He was cut off from the land of the living”
Daniel 9:24 calls the work of Messiah after 483 of those 490 years – the first 3 accomplishments:
to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,to make atonement for iniquity,

Daniel does not talk about THE Messiah Ken. That’s just a Christian mistranslation.It just says messiah (no capital M). There were MANY messiahs in the OT. The amount of weeks don’t even add up for it to be talking about Jesus.

Although the definite article is not there; you are right; it is still about “Messiah” to come as the content makes clear – after 483 years, “Messiah the Prince appears” (after the 69 periods of 7 years = 69 x 7 = 483 years; Daniel 9:25 – and the temple was rebuilt after the return in 539 BC and then Herod spent 40 years expanding and improving the temple in Jerusalem. (John 2:20 and history of Herod “the Great”, etc.)

“Messiah will be cut off” – Daniel 9:26
obviously about Jesus the Messiah, who died on the cross

“and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the temple”
Obviously about the Romans and Titus who destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And the first 3 accomplishments of this period of 490 years is:
to finish transgression
to make an end of sin
to make atonement for iniquity
(Daniel 9:24)

Obviously this is a prophesy of Jesus Messiah and His atoning work and the reason why God allowed the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD.

“the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:25) is in 457 BC as recorded in Ezra 6:14; 7:6-7; 7:11-13, 7:21; and Ezra 9:8-9, by Artaxerxes – notice it is the decree to rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, not the earlier decree by Cyrus that the Jews could return to the land and rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1-4)

457 BC + 483 years = 26 AD (the time of Jesus’ anointing by the Holy Spirit at His baptism) – died 3 and 1/2 years later, 30 AD.

His death in the middle of the last 7 year period marked the end of the sacrificial system as effective.

quote :
Because the New Testament, the True Injeel, انجیل حقیقی teaches that; and it is not blasphemous, since the eternal Son of God voluntarily came to be the fulfillment of all the animal sacrifices in the OT.

end quote

yhwh said there was power in the blood of animals and burnt offerings. yhwh would have puked over human sacrifices. yhwh says blood of human (you do know that your jesus had CREATED blood within him, right ?) POLLUTES the land .

and use your brains for gods sakes. when your god BECAME meat and blood , he was LIMITED and created.
there was no divine nature within it. so your god willingly became ungodly.
“godLESS”

“like a lamb He was led to the slaughter”
Isaiah 53:7

it is easy to handle those who are persecuted. they are like a lamb

use your brains.

your evil missionary deception has been caught out. you have kind of admitted that islam says that God loves human beings more than the 3 pagans in trinity.
you now went to another topic because you couldn’t defend your INITIAL claim.
just to let you know. IF no disbelievers received the message of God, islam says they would not receive punishment. so what were you saying about God loving first?

”
If you believe mankind is basically good; then that contradicts Surah 16:61 and a bunch of other verses in the Qur’an.”

how many times WILL YOU REPEAT THIS LIE? when christians sin, why do people who are not involved in the sin use the plural? “we have done x, y and z” even though people were not involved?
the focus of that verse cannot be prophets, children, righteous.

quote :

Surah 14:34 – mankind is truly a wrongdoer; an ingrate

quote :

27. Allah will keep firm those who believe, with the word that stands firm in this world (i.e. they will keep on worshipping Allah Alone and none else), and in the Hereafter. And Allah will cause to go astray those who are Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.), and Allah does what He wills.

28. Have you not seen those who have changed the Blessings of Allah into disbelief (by denying Prophet Muhammad and his Message of Islam), and caused their people to dwell in the house of destruction?

29. Hell, in which they will burn, – and what an evil place to settle in!

30. And they set up rivals to Allah, to mislead (men) from His Path! Say: “Enjoy (your brief life)! But certainly, your destination is the (Hell) Fire!”

31. Say (O Muhammad ) to ‘Ibadi (My slaves) who have believed, that they should perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend in charity out of the sustenance We have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending.

32. Allah is He Who has created the heavens and the earth and sends down water (rain) from the sky, and thereby brought forth fruits as provision for you; and He has made the ships to be of service to you, that they may sail through the sea by His Command; and He has made rivers (also) to be of service to you.

33. And He has made the sun and the moon, both constantly pursuing their courses, to be of service to you; and He has made the night and the day, to be of service to you.

34. And He gave you of all that you asked for, and if you count the Blessings of Allah, never will you be able to count them. Verily! Man is indeed an extreme wrong-doer, – a disbeliever (an extreme ingrate, denies Allah’s Blessings by disbelief, and by worshipping others besides Allah, and by disobeying Allah and His Prophet Muhammad ).

Surah 12:53 – the human soul is an inciter to evil

53. “And I free not myself (from the blame). Verily, the (human) self is inclined to evil, except when my Lord bestows His Mercy (upon whom He wills). Verily, my Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

”
But Islamic theology denying original sin and corruption in the heart and roots of sin as internal is a contradiction to those verses and the reality of humans. ”

original sin is a lie . yhwh blessed the hebrews when they used their hearts to connect with him .
NO animal and no jesus

and it seems like the SUFFERING servant himself is a SINNER, he himself repents when his god crushes him.
he repents so he can be FORGIVEN.

quote :

G-d told Cain that if he repents and does what is tight and pleasing to G-d, he will master his sin.”

quote :

G-d created absolutely everything that exists, and he said it was all very good.

“Islam says the fault is mostly by one’s upbringing and environment – putting the blame on parents or circumstances rather than the person himself/herself.”

this is true in a sense. if your parents sin in front of you and you are born in place where there is NOTHING but sin, sin and sin like slums and ghettos, then environment is to blame. the child would grow up and learn nothing but filth, on the other hand it is POSSIBLE THE SAME child TURNS away from the filth and live a life of repentance and doing good and fighting of satanic temptations .

”
The Bible teaches the fault is within us, not outside of us.”

the bible is a contradictory book. even the spirit of yhwh which was in yhwhs prophets could not prevent prophets from sinning , meaning the spirit of satan was probably more powerful than yhwhs spirit.

why your false pagan god yhwh PREVENTED the human flesh of jesus from sinning , but he couldn’t do the same for adam? why is he a biased god? you said that the flesh and divine nature do not mix, so there is NO WAY the flesh experienced the divine nature. then why is it that yhwh PUTS his spirit into prophets but he cant stop them FROM sinning, but when he puts his pnuema in CREATED flesh callED jesus, he stops him from sinning?

”
This is a good overview of our sin problem and good introduction to the book of Genesis.”

God created the bowels and system of breaking down food into gas and chemicals and nutrients so that body can digest the good and get rid of what it doesn’t need (gas, feces, urine) – God THOUGHT of that).
But the Father nor the Holy Spirit became a human; only the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, became human. born of the virgin Mary.

don’t twist what I said, I said that your god has EXPERIENTIAL feelings of going to the toilet and passing wind, no sane human would see this as ALMIGHTY. your god IS one of us and we ARENT almighty. I am saying, you have no problem saying that ALMIGHTY passed wind. yhwh also had heavenly nostrils which he used to smell burnt offerings like human beings, it seems as if the god you worship is a human like creature which is not perfect in his attributes . yhwh repents and even grieves like human without requiring flesh, which implies that even without flesh he feels like a man.

“But the Father nor the Holy Spirit became a human; only the second person of the Trinity”

you need to keep the other two away from human experiences, don’t you? you can’t pollute all the trinity with experiential human feelings, can you? you need keep the other two persons “holy”
so when part of “fully god” has experiential human feelings, how does he pass them on to the other two persons who are identified as two “fully gods” ?
how is that possible unless the two ALSO become human beings?

God is Spirit. John 4:23-24
God is the Creator, eternal, invisible, and I cannot help you if you don’t just accept what Christians say they believe, according to all of Scripture. (Tota Scriptura) – The Father did not become human, the Son did. The Holy Spirit did not become human, the Son did. This is what all Christian churches have always believed, based on Scripture. John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 teach that only the Son became a human.

So, it is not a matter of me “needing to do anything”; it is a matter of clear Scripture.

each person in trinity is identified as one person. your god is 3 one’s .
3 yachids . your worship “shared one” like 3 persons sharing one jacket.
you really worship 4 things . it gets worse because each person in trinity does ACTION verbs to the other (communication ) which would mean that you must also worship the words they communicate to each other, making your god 5 things.

so you worship 5 things, not one thing. your god exists as 5 different and distinct things.

“For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

mary was jesus’ mother. the human nature is completely created. jesus must have been mary’s clone.

quote :
Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism, and inherit the genes of that parent only….

so jesus is a CLONED person and he has everything his mother passed to him. her milk would help him grow.

since jesus was having the following thoughts :

C. Sexual thoughts (either gay or straight);

it only makes sense that based on REALITY (not belief) his thoughts WENT through. hebrews lied . not even an angel in heaven (gal 1:8) should convince christians that jesus did not have sinful thoughts in private and in open, evidence is BASED on human nature and your gods pathetic IMPOTENCE in not even PRODUCING one example where he guided /prevented anyone from sin in thought and action. hebrews is a liar and all you have is belief, but belief is CONTRADICTED by reality.

Ken Temple
September 2, 2017 • 5:33 am
no; one God in three persons. There is only one God.

I say;
Just like Mormons God who is one God in multi persons.

Most worshipers of other things will insist they worship one God but in either 2,3,4,5….. persons. Those worshiping cow will insist that cow is both God and cow in flesh. Sai Baba, Haile Selaissie are also 100% men and 100% God. That is what Christians who believe in Trinity accept. God can do whatever he wants. Jay Smith in one of his videos admits God can become a goat, astagfrirullah. Yes, Trinity believing Christians believe in the same concept of Hindus, voodoo, idol Gods who they claim is one God but in other persons and/or things. Blaming Mother Teresa for preaching God can become flesh, the concept that the Trinity believing Christians hold is hypocrisy.

Ken Temple
September 2, 2017 • 8:06 pm
You don’t know Mormonism. Mormonism is even more pagan and polytheistic than Hinduism. It has millions of gods in its theology

I say;
Thanks Ken for that clip of Dr. James White. It does not matter whether you believe in 2,3,4,5,6………. Persons/persons God. Just by adding another person to that only 1 person who is alone and the True God of Abraham, Jesus, Noah etc. makes one a polytheist and/or idol worshiper. So, it does not make Mormons MORE polytheistic than any believer of multi persons God like Trinity believing Christians. They have all added at least one or more persons/thing in that one God of Abraham and that is what is called polytheism and/or idol worship.

except we believe in ONE God. But Mormons believe in millions of gods who have their own planets and populate each planet. They think Elohim had sex with Mary and pro-created Jesus physically. They are a blasphemous false religion.

Trying to count other polytheist’s God in persons as more than yours, doesn’t solve your problem as a polytheist as the Bible defines it to be. If you believed God can do whatever He wants by becoming a flesh in Christ as 100% God 100% man, then you are in line with those who believed in God cow and they worship the cow as 100% God 100% cow. Muslims, Jews and Unitarian Christians are in line with the Bible that teaches God is one, only and alone. Jesus said the ONLY TRUE God of Abraham is the Father and not the Son(Jesus) Christ. I will not forget about other God men like Sai Baba, Haile Selaissie etc. whom their believers just like you believed God became flesh/created. We do not believe God CAN become created because created cancels un created. The Bible said God cannot be formed.

“Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

So, God cannot be formed in Jesus Christ according to the above verse.

You guys there stateside really need to relax a little. The way you treat each other makes the rest of us just look on in amazement. There are more important things in life than whether a dialogue requires this type of back and forth hate. It’s depressing really.

Ken Temple
September 3, 2017 • 3:29 am
except we believe in ONE God. But Mormons believe in millions of gods who have their own planets and populate each planet. They think Elohim had sex with Mary and pro-created Jesus physically. They are a blasphemous false religion.

I say;
I have never seen a Mormon who says he does not believe in one God. They will say they believe in ONE God just like you Ken who says you believe in one God, but in reality you have God the Father that is counted 1, God the Son, that is counted as 2 and God the Holy Spirit that is counted as God number 3. You see the frustrations we get from you Trinity believing Christians?

-When we count Trinity Gods to be 3, you insist they are ONE God but blame the Mormons who also believe in ONE God but in reality one could count more than one Gods in their believe.
-When we say God cannot become His creations i.e. it is impossible for a Creator to become created, you insist God can do whatever He wants and He can become flesh, but you the Trinity believing Christians will blame Mother Teresa for asking Hindus to believe their God who became flesh in Monkeys, Cows, Elephants, Man(Sai Baba) etc.

If you believe ONE God can be more than ONE persons, you have no moral right to accuse Mormons and other idol worshipers who believed so.
If you believe God can become flesh, you have no moral rights to accuse Hindus and other idol worshipers who believed so.

Muslims believe the God of Abraham is one, only and alone and nothing else as the Bible and the Quran said, so have have no moral rights to accuse Jews and Unitarian Christians who believed so.

Ask most Jews and Unitarian Christians and they will tell you the believe in the same God as Muslims but they will tell you they do not believe in the God of Trinity believing Christians. Most Jews will not pray in a Church but will pray in a Mosque if the need arise. Muslims are in the middle and can pray in a synagogue, Church or Mosque. Our religion tells us to respect the Abrahamic faiths because Islam is here to correct them not to condemn them.

I appreciate Dr. James White sincerity on Islam as he has learnt it and realized it is from God and not from demon as Sam Shamoun and other Christians wants us to believe. Dr. JW is a true Christian but I am afraid he is still lost. I am praying for you, him and others to come to Islam like this hate preacher who insults Muslims and Islam but came back to Islam a couple of days ago.

The above was a former “ex Muslim” and a friend of Nabeel Quraish who knowingly tells lies about Islam but realized his sins and came back to Islam and asks God and Muslims for forgiveness. The Christians used their “Holy Spirit” and spoke in tongues to “save” him but they weren’t successful this time.

I hope one day Ken, Dr. James White, Nabeel, Shamoun etc. turn to Islam to worship the only true God who is the God of Jesus Christ.

Ken Temple
September 3, 2017 • 3:29 am
except we believe in ONE God. But Mormons believe in millions of gods who have their own planets and populate each planet. They think Elohim had sex with Mary and pro-created Jesus physically. They are a blasphemous false religion.

I say;
You don’t blame them, that is what begotten means and it is in some Bibles and not in others. So, they believed in the Bible. The Bible said “Begotten Son” and not “externally generated Son”.

The Quran corrects them and answered the confusion in that God is one, only and alone and does not begets. You and Dr. James White blamed the Quran for this important correction.

When it comes to His(God’s) nature and salvation, God is clear about that in the Bible and the Quran, If God is “eternally generated” He will tell us but He did not tell us in the Bible that, he is eternally generated.

31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?”

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

John 8:31-36

only through Christ is true freedom from sin and success in following God’s will.

“only through Christ is true freedom from sin and success in following God’s will.”

this is a lie and you are proof of this lie. you don’t need jesus, his blood, his murder, his sacrifice , his suffering. you don’t need a bloody go between

your own bible says god gave the power to people to master over hate, anger and lust. your own bible said that no murder of jesus was required, no animal sacrifice was required to become better person in the SIGHT of God.

one is rewarded for putting effort in mastering over lust, anger and hatred, the christian is DEPENDENT on the bloody murder of jesus because he tells himself that god does not REWARD EFFORT. so one who puts effort must be better than a christian who says “its part of our nature”

I think it is clear that NT historical criticism has proven beyond a doubt that Jesus and Paul preached two different and diametrically opposed religions. Christians who reject this fact are either in a state of ignorance and/or plain denial OR they understand the facts but are forced to reject the truth, because the facts which have been exposed, vindicate the Qur’anic perspective and the (historical) Jesus of Islam.

“Only all Christians for over 2000 years understood Jesus and Paul as preaching the same message.”

Many biblical scholars and lay Christians have noted that Jesus preached almost exclusively about the kingdom of heaven, while Paul highlighted justification by faith—and not vice versa. Some conclude that they preached two different gospels. Others argue that really they both preached justification; still others say it’s all about the kingdom.

The Christian group called Swedenborgian, which also now goes by the name of The New Church, rejects Paul’s writings.

The group was started by Emanuel Swedenborg in 1787 in England. He reported having visions from God which clarified the scriptures so that the church could prepare for the second coming of Christ. Swedenborg’s writings make up numerous volumes that contain his spiritual commentary.

Swedenborg gave new spiritual interpretations of the texts he considered to be scripture— which in the New Testament he only considered the four gospels and the book of Revelation. The writings of Paul, as well as the book of Acts and the other letters were not part of his canon.

Swedenborg’s theology is strongly contrary to Paul’s and it is not surprising that he truncated Paul’s writings from his Bible.

Also Unitarians, Gnostics, and semi/full Pelagians to name the big groups outside of historical ones like donist, Arians, Essenes, Ebionites, Nazarenes, etc. did not accept Paul and rejected his teachings. There are also many new-age, new thought churches that reject Paul.

It seems that not ALL Christians agree on Paul, and that there much confusion on the matter in Christianity.

What Historical criticism ACTUALLY demonstrates is that the NT is composed of reinterpretations of OT Bible stories combined with gnostic tales and writings, Rabbinic literature, infused with pagan theology, written by pseudipigraphal (read: forgery) and fallible human authors and corrupted with alterations, errors, mistakes, misinterpolations, misinterpretations, insertions, and innovations. But Christian apologists aren’t known for their consistency, nor honesty.

And why God had created us from the beginning so capable of doing sins ,why He did not create us only can do whatever God wants us to do instead of making us sin doers then send himself to sacrifice for these sins and what is the use of repentance then ,try to think reasonably before it is toooooo late .

Ken said:
“no; not even Muhammad has success against his sins – he clearly had to confess his sins”
Allah(sw) has said this to the last prophet ﷺ
QT
“Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest
That Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path”

The question though
Why does your god fear from his God ?
What about Psalm 40:12?

Worshiping a human being is the way to the Hellfire, Ken. Choose for yourself !
“I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” Isaiah

There is no more prophesy after the 27 books of the NT (the true Injeel of Jesus) and no more revelation or Scripture after those books were finished by 96 AD.

Jude 1:3 – “the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints”

So, the guy in Arabia who came almost 600 years later was not a prophet or apostle.

He had some kind of experience in a cave and at first, thought he was demon-possessed,because the spirit was strangling him, and tried to throw himself off a cliff; according to the Sira / Sunnah & Hadith literature.

Quoting from the Hadith of Bukhari, 9.111:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light. He used to go in seclusion (the cave of) Hira where he used to worship(Allah Alone) continuously for many (days) nights. He used to take with him the journey food for that (stay) and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again for another period to stay, till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.” (The Prophet added), “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, “I do not know how to read,” whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, “I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?).” Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, “Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous…up to….. ..that which he knew not.” (96.15)

Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, “O Khadija, what is wrong with me?” Then he told her everything that had happened and said, ‘I fear that something may happen to me.” Khadija said, ‘Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good relations with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones.”

… But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Apostle in truth” whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before. (Ibn ‘Abbas said regarding the meaning of: ‘He it is that Cleaves the daybreak (from the darkness)’ (6.96) that Al-Asbah means the light of the sun during the day and the light of the moon at night).

“There is no more prophesy after the 27 books of the NT (the true Injeel of Jesus) and no more revelation or Scripture after those books were finished by 96 AD”
It’s just a fundamental view doesn’t deserve to waste my time with!

“the guy in Arabia who came almost 600 years later was not a prophet or apostle”
First of all, the was the best human being that Allah(sw) has chosen to be the last prophetﷺ

“But Allah bears witness to that which He has revealed to you. He has sent it down with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness [as well]. And sufficient is Allah as Witness.” QT Surah 4:166

“Say, “Have you considered: if the Qur’an was from Allah, and you disbelieved in it while a witness from the Children of Israel has testified to something similar and believed while you were arrogant… ?” Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” Surah 46:10

Hadith From Bukhari proves the humanity of the prophetﷺ when he faced the heaviness of the revelation. Not any revelation rather it’s the last one which you have to obey.
Khadija’s words show you what that man really was. Waraqah bore witness as well as you read.

Regarding the story of mountains to kill himself, it’s a weak narration.
Bukhari narrated that as Muallaq (i.e hanging) not attached. But even if it were Sahih hadith, what would be your problem?
Have you not read “Gabriel would appear before him and say, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Apostle in truth” whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home”
Also, you believe that almighty God came to deliver himself to his enemies to die on a cross as a curse!
You believe that almighty God got attempted by Satan till the Holy spirit came and took him out form that situation!
The clown’s nonsense argument doesn’t work here! Remember that always.

Then what about your false prophet Paul? No idea why you accept him as apostle from God while he couldn’t say a word for the true Jesus’s disciples about his vision to prove his authority!

Any answer for these Qs, mr human being worshiper
Why does your god fear from his God ?
What about Psalm 40:12?

Worshiping a human being is the way to the Hellfire, Ken. Choose for yourself !
“I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” Isaiah

christianity is proof that you do not need jesus’ blood, suffering, murder, righteousness, etc

i quote :

If there is no condemnation of sin, grace may abound, but sin abounds all the more, which is why Christianity fails by its own standards. Belief in Jesus’ death on the cross doesn’t free humanity from petiness, bitterness, or strife. Would that it did, we would not need to be having this conversation.

Christians have been telling Jews for centuries that the law cannot save because it gives you a choice. It doesn’t make you holy. The thing is Gean, the gospel doesn’t make humans holy either.

There are countless groups of Christians who all claim that their reading of the gospel is the true reading, and they all claim justification through the cross, but none of them actually live a life free of judgment or fear.

I grew up Protestant, had Catholic family, and Orthodox friends, so my exposure to the Church (including university education) is pretty broad when it comes to Christianity.

The problem with your view of Jesus, his crucifixion, and Christianity, is that your view fails in the same way the law fails.

Jesus may have been a great man, (and for the record, I don’t dislike Jesus.) But his Crucifixion doesn’t actually release a person from fear of death, nor does it release one from sinful desire. In fact, I have observed firsthand that Christians have a haughtiness of spirit because they believe that G-d will forgive them all their wrongs no matter what, no matter how severe.

Belief in Jesus creates a kind of spiritual wellfare check where the recipient then looks down on the one who refuses the check.

All Jews want is to practice their religion in peace the way their ancestors have done. You have provided an explanation for sin, (according to your understanding,) but that is just the problem, ITS YOUR PRIVATE UNDERSTANDING.

We have to have a baseline for discussion. A starting point. For Jews, the starting point is “does this ideology mesh with the plain meaning of the commands in the Jewish bible?”

more :

To put this another way. When G-d was on Sinai speaking to Moses and the Jewish people, (the context in which the bible was 1st delivered to humans,) did G-d talk about a sin nature? Did he mention Satan and a fall into sin that humans must be saved from? No.

He said to Israel that if they observed the commandments he was giving them that day, that they would be blessed and live in the land. He said the commandments were not too hard or beyond their ability to observe. He even said that the covenant of Sinai was his covenant of love with Israel.

So Gean, while I understand why you read scripture the way you do, its not the Jewish way of reading the scripture.

/////////////

which brings me back to

15″So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. 16″Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil

“since the eternal Son of God voluntarily came to be the fulfillment of all the animal sacrifices in the OT.”
It’s very satanic to believe that God of Abraham became a created being to take the job of animals!
It’s the work of the devil itself.

“…..they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” QT 9:30.

Narrated ‘Aisha:
(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright daylight, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, “I do not know how to read.” The Prophet (ﷺ) added, “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, ‘Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists), created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.” (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.” Khadija replied, “Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones.” Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin ‘Abdul ‘Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, “Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!” Waraqa asked, “O my nephew! What have you seen?” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, “This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out.” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) asked, “Will they drive me out?” Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, “Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly.” But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.

Surah 2:78
And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.

Unlettered ones – illiterate – same as in Surah 7:157

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him – it is those who will be the successful.

“…voluntarily came to be the fulfillment of all the animal sacrifices in the OT.”

///////////////

“human violence is assumed to be permanent and recurrent, and so there is a continual need to atone in some way for bad actions.if anything , a sacrificial system can encourage CORRUPTION AND VIOLENCE because almost any sin or act of corruption can be removed by sacrifice , and so a perpetrator theoretically can continue to act sinfully as long as he or she knows there are means to remove the punishment . this sort of reasoning can actually result in killing more animals because one never could be sure of how many sins one had committed. note what job did on behalf of his sons

job 1:5, lev 5:15”

yhwh set up a system which was CORRUPT to begin with.

isaiah and jeremiah realized this without any jesus.

When you come to appear before me,[a]
who asked this from your hand?
Trample my courts no more;
13 bringing offerings is futile;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—
I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.
14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you stretch out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,

“‘In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.’”

He still had to make atonement for himself and the people through the ministry of his priesthood.

“human violence is assumed to be permanent and recurrent, and so there is a continual need to atone in some way for bad actions.if anything , a sacrificial system can encourage CORRUPTION AND VIOLENCE because almost any sin or act of corruption can be removed by sacrifice , and so a perpetrator theoretically can continue to act sinfully as long as he or she knows there are means to remove the punishment . this sort of reasoning can actually result in killing more animals because one never could be sure of how many sins one had committed. note what job did on behalf of his sons

job 1:5, lev 5:15”

‘ christianity is an abusive theology that glorifies suffering ‘

mark 8.31-38

“the passage certainly seems to encourage victimhood in v 34, where disciples are instructed to ‘take up the cross’ a known instrument of roman torture and execution. ”

:::::::
quote:
First, such doctrine always trades in the language of sacrifice. Increasing numbers of people find this language empty, literally unintelligible, or actively offensive. The first time I visited the Kali temple in Calcutta, I literally stepped in pools of blood from a sacrificed goat. I felt revulstion, and yet I saw the irony in that reaction. I have attended worship services all my life in which people talked and sang about blood shed for me. I never walked away with any on my shoes before. If I was comfortable with the abstract idea, why did I shrink from the reality? (p. 23).

:::::::::::

Fifth, a rising chorus charges that Christian ideas of atonement foster toxic psychological and social effects. […] In exalting Christ’s death, do we not glorify innocent suffering and encourage people to passively accept roles as surrogate sufferers for others, “in imitation of Christ”? What earthly despot would not be glad to have the weak and oppressed adopt this as their spiritual ideal? By making the cross God’s recipe for salvation, do we validate violence as a divine way of doing business? A theology that has the heavenly Father punish his innocent son to redeem the world looks uncomfortably to some like a charter for child abuse, with an innocent son sent to bear the wrath of a “heavenly father” to make things right for the entire extended family.

[…] Whether we are thinking of society as a whole or as individuals, this indictment states that the cross should carry a label: this religious image may be harmful to your health (pp. 25-26).

jews even seem to be embarrassed by the corrupt sacrificial system in the torah :

In denying Tanach’s teachings on repentance, Kavi denies the love of God. HaShem promises mercy to those that return to His ways. He promises to no longer consider them guilty. He promises that He does not seek the destruction of the wicked; He wishes them to repent. But Kavi envisions a god whose promises are empty, a god that teases his creatures with an idea that they can return to him and be forgiven, when in reality he will withhold that forgiveness from them. He envisions a god that says he does not desire the death of the wicked, because what he really wants is the death of the righteous. Kavi’s misrepresentations of Tanach distort and deny the promises of HaShem. He falsely labels HaShem’s way of repentance, “our way” of repentance, denigrating HaShem’s way. Kavi relied on baseless inferences rather than Tanach’s actual teachings on repentance, and in so doing distorted the teaching of Tanach.

Job, as read by Girad , becomes a moral farce. He tells us that ‘God sides with the victims against their persecutors’, and then uses Job as an example . Girard forgets that the narrator says that God allows satan to torture Job, who is held to be ‘blameless and upright (job 1.1) God himself comments to SATAN about Job : ‘he still holds fast his integrity , although you moved me against him, to DESTROY HIM WITHOUT CAUSE. ‘ (job 2.3) THUS, even God admits he is siding with the torturer and against the victim, job. GOD ADMITS THAT HE IS ALLOWING JOB TO BE TORTURED ‘FOR NO REASON’

now for the first time it is with a single word explicitly granted that job has been “smitten for NO REASON”

PAGE 148 “the bad jesus”

so we see your lord punish INNOCENT people “for no reason”
which beg the question, why couldn’t he forgive them without BLOODy violent ritual?

But what shall we say adequate to confront the base representation that it is not punishment, not the suffering of the sinner that is required, but suffering! nay, as if this were not depth enough of baseness to crown all heathenish representation of the ways of God, that the suffering of the innocent is unspeakably preferable in his eyes to that of the wicked, as a make-up for wrong done! nay, again, ‘in the lowest deep a lower deep,’ that the suffering of the holy, the suffering of the loving, the suffering of the eternally and perfectly good, is supremely satisfactory to the pure justice of the Father of spirits! Not all the suffering that could be heaped upon the wicked could buy them a moment’s respite, so little is their suffering a counterpoise to their wrong; in the working of this law of equivalents, this lex talionis, the suffering of millions of years could not equal the sin of a moment, could not pay off one farthing of the deep debt. But so much more valuable, precious, and dear, is the suffering of the innocent, so much more of a satisfaction—observe—to the justice of God, that in return for that suffering another wrong is done: the sinners who deserve and ought to be punished are set free.

I know the root of all that can be said on the subject; the notion is imbedded in the gray matter of my Scotch brains; and if I reject it, I know what I reject. For the love of God my heart rose early against the low invention. Strange that in a Christian land it should need to be said, that to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free is unjust! It wrongs the innocent, the guilty, and God himself. It would be the worst of all wrongs to the guilty to treat them as innocent. The whole device is a piece of spiritual charlatanry—fit only for a fraudulent jail—delivery. If the wicked ought to be punished, it were the worst possible perversion of justice to take a righteous being however strong, and punish him instead of the sinner however weak. To the poorest idea of justice in punishment, it is essential that the sinner, and no other than the sinner, should receive the punishment. The strong being that was willing to bear such punishment might well be regarded as worshipful, but what of the God whose so-called justice he thus defeats? If you say it is justice, not God that demands the suffering, I say justice cannot demand that which is unjust, and the whole thing is unjust. God is absolutely just, and there is no deliverance from his justice, which is one with his mercy. The device is an absurdity—a grotesquely deformed absurdity.

“To show that he was willing and able to experience some of the worst aspects of our situation”

Dying for a few days and being tortured are his way of doing this? This is hilarious. He is a coward for not wanting to “share” in a full life of being human. How dare he say he experienced what we do. He gets to be god afterwards! His death was temporary! His torture is a blip on his timescale.

It’s clear you are reaching. He didn’t suffer nearly as much as even a single child suffering through disease and starvation, let alone the combined suffering of mankind.

“He came back to show that physical death is not the end for any of us. In a way, death is meaningless.”

Then he didn’t even sacrifice his own life…

A few days of torture makes up for all sin for all mankind for all time? If this is enough for God, it’s disgusting that he would allow someone to suffer for all eternity for something that could be solved by him being tortured in a human body for a few days.

right this minute god is willing into existence the BUTCHERING of children.

in christianity, the corrupt god yhwh decides to butcher his created flesh to calm him down and then WILL the butchering of children in 2017. if the ones who do butchering believe that god took the action of butchering back in time, then gods justice is appeased. this is corruption.

the christian and jewish doctrine of atonement is corruption

1Peter 1:20 he was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

The above quote shows this as gods first actual judgement and shows the setting and accepting of a bribe or human sacrifice to corrupt his justice. That justice usually stated that only the punishment of the guilty was acceptable to justice . That corruption of his usual justice is what the bribe or sacrifice of himself bought. Injustice.

This corrupted judge is the judge you would vote for is it?

quote :

But substitutionists reverse this natural order of the relation between crime and punishment, making the removal of the “reatus poena” antecedent to the removal of the “reatus culpae”—that is, exemption from punishment is the antecedent of deliverance from criminality.

Hence, the sinner is pardoned, released from all liability to penal suffering, when Christ became his substitute, but is left in his criminal and polluted state; morally corrupt, but not liable to-the divinely ordained consequence of his corruption! At enmity against God, yet not liable to the consequences of that state of enmity. Such a state of things, it is self-evident, is impossible in the sphere of either physical or moral law. It would be possible only in the sphere of human law, and possible here only because of the inherent weakness of human law. Thus, a man commits a malicious murder, is indicted and tried by the proper court; but, by the bribery or death of witnesses, or by corrupting the court, he procures a verdict of acquittal, and is set free. This verdict operates as a barrier against subsequent prosecution and punishment. This is exactly the state in which substitutionary satisfaction puts all for whom Christ died. His death absolutely delivers from “reatus poena,” but leaves them in the meshes of “reatus culpae,” from which, however, they are at some indefinite time to be wholly or in part relieved (pp. 113-14).

right this minute god is willing into existence the BUTCHERING of children.

in christianity, the corrupt god yhwh decides to butcher his created flesh to calm him down and then WILL the butchering of children in 2017. if the ones who do butchering believe that god took the action of butchering back in time, then gods justice is appeased. this is corruption.

the christian and jewish doctrine of atonement is corruption

1Peter 1:20 he was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

The above quote shows this as gods first actual judgement and shows the setting and accepting of a bribe or human sacrifice to corrupt his justice. That justice usually stated that only the punishment of the guilty was acceptable to justice . That corruption of his usual justice is what the bribe or sacrifice of himself bought. Injustice.

This corrupted judge is the judge you would vote for is it?

quote :

But substitutionists reverse this natural order of the relation between crime and punishment, making the removal of the “reatus poena” antecedent to the removal of the “reatus culpae”—that is, exemption from punishment is the antecedent of deliverance from criminality.

Hence, the sinner is pardoned, released from all liability to penal suffering, when Christ became his substitute, but is left in his criminal and polluted state; morally corrupt, but not liable to-the divinely ordained consequence of his corruption! At enmity against God, yet not liable to the consequences of that state of enmity. Such a state of things, it is self-evident, is impossible in the sphere of either physical or moral law. It would be possible only in the sphere of human law, and possible here only because of the inherent weakness of human law. Thus, a man commits a malicious murder, is indicted and tried by the proper court; but, by the bribery or death of witnesses, or by corrupting the court, he procures a verdict of acquittal, and is set free. This verdict operates as a barrier against subsequent prosecution and punishment. This is exactly the state in which substitutionary satisfaction puts all for whom Christ died. His death absolutely delivers from “reatus poena,” but leaves them in the meshes of “reatus culpae,” from which, however, they are at some indefinite time to be wholly or in part relieved (pp. 113-14).

The Christian Cross: The Most Celebrated and Recognised Symbol of Child Abuse
by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

One of the most adhesive theological conundrums that Christian soteriology constantly faces today is the idea that the Father’s action in giving up His son, Jesus to His enemies to be flogged, stripped and nailed naked on the cross to finally die a most shameful death as the only possible way to grant everlasting bliss to the vilest offenders imaginable, conditioned upon the creature’s acceptance of that ghastly atoning sacrifice, is child abuse of the highest order of a magnitude that would shame even the the most nefarious of abusers, for the ridicule and the torture and the eventual demise that the Son, i.e., Jesus, had to endure on that ignominious cross was THE divine plan that was eternally hatched since before time existed (Revelation 13:8). The technical term for this salvific theory and its accompanying theological difficulty adumberated above is penal substitution, which is perhaps no more beautifully, yet disturbingly, depicted than in Domenico Beccafumi’s painting attached below– a lifelike illustration of our point from almost 500 years ago.

The philosophical problem that comes prepacked with the penal substitution theory has latched itself onto the Christian cross and remains stubbornly in place as Christian theologians continue to this very moment to piece together reconiliatory excuses but failing rather miserably to come up with a substantive and definitive formula that all Christians could rationally concur with and cling to. No excuse, as a matter of fact, can possibly ameliorate the difficulty in imputing God as the exemplar father figure for all time with the ultimate responsibility of planning and executing the abuse, torture and death of His son, since before He even created time, so that the least of sinners to the greatest of sinners could all be forgiven, saved and bestowed unimaginable everlasting pleasure by simply believing in that divine child abuse. And in Catholicism, it has taken the image of the crucifix and made into the official stamp of the religion.

No doubt, our Christian acquaintances and friends will find the above rather difficult to bear but is there any other way to describe the concept of salvation that they rigorously try to have us swallow? How would a person describe a father who says to his only son’s friends and enemies the following?

“I cannot allow any of you into my beautiful palace until and unless I personally see to it that my one and only son, whom I love with all my heart, is berated and emotionally scarred by his enemies, spat upon, physically tortured, stripped naked and nailed on a cross in my garden for all to gawk at until he breathes his last. And this is something that I have placed in the blueprint of existence since before time.”

If that is not textbook child abuse, what is? Indeed, it is child abuse of cosmic proportions.

Commenting on penal substitution as the underlying theme behind the cross, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Dr. Thomas Schreiner writes:

“The wisdom of God displayed in the cross is rejected by the wise of this age. Penal substitution is an object of indignation and regularly pilloried by many of the educated class. For instance, many radical feminists claim that penal substitution sanctions domestic abuse of women and children. In a recent book Denny Weaver emphatically rejects penal substitution and advocates nonviolent atonement. Scholars regularly complain that penal substitution is abstract, legal and impersonal. They lament that it pits the Father against the Son, puts the law above God and places the emphasis on a wrathful God. Even in the evangelical camp there is the claim that penal substitution is “cosmic child abuse” and contrary to the love of God.” [1]

Professor emeritus of religion at Bluffton University Dr. J. Denny Weaver sees the underlying philosophical baggage of the penal substitution theory as justification for labelling the concept as “child abuse”. He writes:
“The idea of a “vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed” qualifies penal substitution for the label of divine child abuse.” [2]

“A third critical objection is that the penal substitution view celebrates and justifies redemptive violence as a solution to human problems. God the Father satisfies the demands of justice by inflicting upon the Son unthinkable, torturous violence–in fact, “the most horrible and contemptuous form of execution known to the ancient world.” Critics have referred to penal substitution as a theory of “cosmic child abuse” committed by a “sadistic and bloodthirsty”God.” [3]

Howard Paterson Professor of Theology and Public Issues, and Director of the Centre for Theology and Public Issues at the University of Otago’s School of Theology Dr. David Tombs commends criticism of penal substitution and its underlying philosophy and readily identifies it as a promotion of “child abuse”:
“Penal substitution is the doctrine that Christ died in the place of men and women, and by taking punishment in their place he paid the penalty for them. This model of atonement with its strongly judicial and retributive emphasis has its roots back to Anselm in the medieval period, and was subsequently developed and revised by Calvin during the Reformation. For some Evangelical Protestant churches penal substitution is the only acceptable version of the church’s historical understanding of atonement, and any alternative is a concession and betrayal… However, the assumptions behind penal substitution have been strongly criticised on both ethical and theological grounds. Its starting point appears to be an uncritical affirmation of retributive justice; and its proposed resolution appears to support, and even to celebrate, the punishment of the innocent without good reason. Feminist theologians have also pointed out that the logic of penal substitution does little to challenge abusive power relations and punitive violence, and ultimately provides a divine archetype for child abuse.” [4]

quote:
Sadly, for you, the heart of the Christian prayer, as preserved (although in more than one form) taught and read in religious and liturgical gatherings, the so called ‘Lord’s Prayer’ dismisses your entire comment above an anachronistic and incompatible with the historical Jesus movement’s view of soteriology. The most insightful line, taught by Jesus, who is supposed to be God Himself, says rather plainly “Forgive us our sins as we have forgiven those who sin against us.” (Matthew 6:12; NLT) This most revealing line completely shatters the myth of some dichotomy between God’s attributes of Mercy and Justice that can only be reconciled through complete and total punishment in the most literal and graphic sense possible.

That is without a doubt an innovation that has no scriptural proof, i.e., the idea that God must in every account and in every instance dutifully send down total punishment to the sinner as retribution for his errant deeds and that without such a Shylock-like concept, God cannot truly exist as both Merciful and Just.

That supposed tension, that is an endless chasm, between Mercy and Justice, that in the Christian mind can only be bridged by the shedding of innocent blood (which is an added dilemma), is demonstrably an anachronism that was constructed in postbiblical periods that perfectly fits the saving hypothesis fallacy as Christian philosophers, with the rise of philosophical acumen in their circles, noticed the most horrible idea of imposing upon the Creator of the universe the belief that through some mysterious metaphysical law, that is apparently above the Creator of everything, He must teach that He can only be real with those two important divine attributes by having us make some kind of business transaction, a purchase, that selfishly looks primarily at the individual’s needs for an unimaginable reward that is greater than every ounce of precious gold in the universe, that is, paradise, And the only way that infinitely lucrative profit (i.e., paradise) can be purchased is through the currency that comes in the form of human blood that is shed, till the person dies a most painful death, and above all else, that person must be holistically innocent in every way.

The idea, which is evidently fowarded, most especially by evangelicals, as a solution to the universally-agreed evil of punishing the innocent homemaker mother (who in reality, as a human being, is most probably sinful in ways best known to her as a human being) to save the rapist that raped and killed her one and only daughter, by having her tortured and punished with the worse execution method of the time till she finally dies, by which time, the rapist and killer is released from any and all blame and is even given a reward, i.e., paradise, that carries a value greater than all of the entire universe combined. In reality, that existential Christian theological conundrum is mitigated, at least in the Christian philosopher’s mind, by that innovated idea of some mysterious and inexplicable chasm between Divine Mercy and Divine Justice that is held together only by the blood of the most innocent– a view that the Catholic church admits is a mystery that escapes the human intellect. In reality, the saving hypothesis fallacy that the Christians have drowned themselves in by establishing the non-biblical view that Justice can only exist with Mercy through the most horrendous death of the most innocent of us is but sheer red herring (that has the distinctive Red Herring fish’s stinking smell) is really the desired outcome as a strategy to distract the common person that lives his mundane life that is filled with worldly struggles that take much of his attention away, leaving him little left to contemplate of the philosophy of this or that church doctrine. This most poorly constructed view of the Divine is an idea that is nothing but one that appears to have been plucked out by Alice in Wonderland: a myth, with little tangible and intellectual value, that has no acceptance in the real world where we recognise, in concert, the total unacceptable and evil notion of letting the proven guilty scott-free by having the most outstanding candidate in our society to be punished in his stead with the greatest and grotesque execution method in current existence. The Matthean and Lukan testimony concerning the prayer that Jesus taught, carrying with it a particular anti-Christian dogma is encapsulated clearly in the verse cited earlier, i.e., Matthew 6:12. Before we detail Matthew 6:12 as an impassable stumbling block for Christian soteriology, let us consider the following Christian syllogism:

Premise 1: God must impose divine punishment upon the sinful for his sin or sins in order to maintain his attributes of Mercy and Justice that must exist together eternally.

Premise 2: God punishes the most innocent person in history with zero connection or association with any form of sin.

Conclusion: The God in premise 1 is a different God in a different world than the God in premise 2, as the latter enacts a plan in His different world than the former and it is clearly in complete contradictory to how the God in premise 1 handles the sinner. A possible alternative is neither God, that comes out of Christian propositions in their compounded discourse on soteriology, actually exists and that could be one of the reasons why most atheists today were once upon a time Christians, even if only in the nominal sense. That possible alternative could very well be the case, if standard Christian thought is brought into the logical equation, because Premise 2 God does not only depart from the idea that to vindicate Divine Justice the guilty must be punished but He Himself, Premise 2 God, becomes the object of Divine retribution, carrying no fault or sin as He is supposed to be the fountain of righteous perfection. In this fact, the Christian claim that sin has been put in its place by the crucifixion is nothing but wool over everyone’s eyes as no sin or sinner was taken into account and punished at Calvary on the cross. Instead, it was the source of every good and perfection that is punished by the punisher himself, which morbidly resembles what psychologists would term ‘masochism’. And ‘God would not be God’, as William Lane Craig, would phrase it, if he simply showed mercy without requiring substantial payment to receive that forgiveness, the ticket to eternal wonderment and bliss. In the end, Christian soteriology is self-defeating where the sin that supposedly must be punished to maintain God’s existence with two of His fundamental attributes is merrily released from any form of retribution and instead kicks, spats, step on, batter and nail an innocent man with no relations whatsoever to sin to die shamefully and miserably with only a thin baby’s napkin to hide his extremities.

Matthew 6:12 reads, “and forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who sin against us.” Bearing in mind that this petition is, according to Christian tradition, handcrafted by Jesus himself who was in that human form, actually God Himself, the specific line (verse 12) above puts an argument that Jesus made, to convince God, who is supposed to be himself as he spoke those words, to forgive the believer just as they have forgiven those that have transgressed them. One does not have to possess a sophisticated appreciation of the tools of rational thought and great erudition in theology to notice the real meaning of the prayerful line in question: God should forgive, without blood to mysteriously reconcile Justice and Mercy, just as the chosen disciples of Jesus had forgiven (note the past tense as it necessarily means that the act of forgiveness at the time the words were spoken had occurred and must have had 100% effectiveness that scrubbed the names of every one of those transgressors from God’s book of sinners since it is God himself, that is Jesus, who uses that bloodless rite of forgiveness as an argument to God’s ears to forgive the apostles and Jesus’ other followers as they uttered those words moons and moons before the crucifixion ever took place). Unless the Christian apologist would like to embarrassingly suggest that the disciples had their pockets fattened with literal sacrifices, specifically that involves killing that results in an out pour of blood, by each of their transgressors, as the one and only key that allows forgiveness, which in the structure of the tense of the text in question clearly informs discerning readers that they successfully forgave their transgressors, and that happened perfectly without any amount of blood. If that line of argument to God that is made to authentically attain His forgiveness is indeed correctly taught by Jesus, supposedly that God Himself, to whom the petition is made, then the positive use of the bloodless forgiveness of the disciples is recognition of the Divine prerogative to forgive in kind without blood. Or perhaps our good friend would like to accuse Jesus of teaching one of the most primary prayers that he ever taught to his chosen and Holy Spirit- inspired disciples was in fact, telling lies and misguiding people about fundamental religious doctrines like redemption. The the verse in question soundly obliterates the Christian doctrine of redemption.

In the Old Testament, we learn of one of the ten most important commandments that God revealed to Moses which was that God determined that murder or killing be completely outlawed. That is the sixth command in Deuteronomy 5:17.

Breaking that prime directive results in what Catholics would call mortal sin– a sin so severe that it nullifies the grace of God that He bestows on a person. Samuel B. Smith writes, “”That is mortal sin,” says Ligori, “which, on account of its enormity, destroys the grace and friendship of God, and deserves eternal punishment. It is called mortal, because it destroys the principle of spiritual life, which is habitual grace, and kills the soul.”

(Smith, S. B. (1836). A Synopsis of the Moral Theology of the Church of Rome Taken from the Works of St. Ligori, and Translated from the Latin into English. New York: Patterson, Ingram, & Co. p. 20)

Fast forward a few thousand years, that divine and omniscient Being– according to Christian fundamental doctrine –decided to insert Himself into the womb of a woman named Mary and swim into the world through the birth canal: the only passageway, with all its filth and muck, into this world for any human being. This divine Being, that created human beings and continually creates human beings as we speak, who is now a human being (John 1) grew up and learned things like any other fool (Luke 2:40-52) even though He was all knowing and is the source of all data and knowledge.

He prepares the scene that according to Christian dogma epitomizes His love for His human creatures wherein He would have to die the death of a murder at the hands of a people upon whom the sixth commandment was explicitly revealed in order that salvation be possible for the very same people that committed that heinous deed as well as all of mankind if only they would believe in that sanctifying sacrifice (John 3:16). In short and in essence, fundamental Christian soteriology, without ifs and buts, teaches that God told people in no ambiguous terms that killing is so horrible that even His grace is defeated by it but this same prohibited deed– a humiliating death by murder, an act that He outlawed as sinful –that overpowers His grace is what He chose and planned for Himself and it is the only way to earn His grace and earn oneself a ticket to eternal bliss. A sinful process is a salvific process or truer to the first paragraph, in mortal sin is salvific promise! Would one be at risk of anathema if one came up with an eleventh commandment to mirror the salvific dogma of Christianity?

But the Christian gospel is the gospel of love and that gospel of love is the gospel of the cross without which all is lost. So in fact what might be an eleventh commandment may turn out to be the first and most important commandment of all: Thou shall kill your God that He may forgive you all your sins.

Let us try to unravel this mystery together or have you had enough headache for a lifetime just having to read this?
So in a match between the Sixth Commandment and the Christian Cross, which would emerge victorious?
My money is with the Sixth Commandment and I would even stake my life on it. As Proncell Johnson writes, ” God also told us via the Ten Commandments, “:thou shalt not kill.” He would not contradict His own commandments! This is what we would expect of pagan gods, but not of the God of love!” [John, P. F. Jr. (2010). The Christian’s God Does Not Exist! Yes, He/She Does!. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Dorrance Publishing. p.233] Which do you think would win the match?

Translation- ” I don’t like what you said and don’t know how to answer so I’ll just pretend like everything I’ve said, (even though I’ve posted this same thought 100 times before) remains unanswered. Sigh, I hope they never catch me out!”

“Jay Smith in one of his videos admits God can become a goat, astagfrirullah. Yes, Trinity believing Christians believe in the same concept of Hindus, voodoo, idol Gods who they claim is one God but in other persons and/or things.”

No.

We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same God.

We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same God.

I say;

But the Son says, the Father is greater than I. You accuse someone’s English language. It is clear your English language is as bad as mine because you don’t understand something(Father), that is greater than another thing(Son) cannot be the same.

Even according to their doctrine, Trinity believing Christians agreed the Father is not the Son. If the Father is not the Son, how can the Son(Jesus) be the Father? Impossibility. God is one, only and alone according to the Bible. So, if the Son clearly said the only true God is the Father, the Son cannot be the only true God because the only true God is 1 who is the Father and not the Son. According to the Son himself and not according to councils of Chalcedon, Nicea, Ephesus, Constantinople etc.

if yhwh spoke in one voice , how is one to assume 3 distinct speakers?
when moses heard yhwh speak, who was speaking? he saw no form, only heard 1 speaker. did moses think that he was listening to 3 distinct things?

“But the Son says, the Father is greater than I. You accuse someone’s English language. It is clear your English language is as bad as mine because you don’t understand something(Father), that is greater than another thing(Son) cannot be the same.”

He also identifies himself with the Father’s greatness:

John 10 v 28 “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;……………………. 30 I and my Father are one.”

You are wrong. He did not identify himself with the Father’s greatness. He said;

John 10:30

My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.” 31At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him.…

Jesus did not say “I am greater than all” but Jesus said “My Father is greater than all”. This is a very simple English language anyone can understand.

The Jews always want to have problem with Jesus and they want to lie and tie him with something he did not say and would like to harm and kill him. He did not say he is God or greater than anyone but the Father is greater than all and not Jesus. That is what Jesus said above.

Are you not one with the Father in purpose? Don’t you want to worship the Father like Jesus did and get closer to the Father in purpose?